ＲＥＶＯＬＵＴＩＯＮ ＩＳ ＯＶＥＲＲＡＴＥＤ
Crypto-Centrist Transhumanist Nationalist.
Type-19 Paramilitary Cyborg. Wanted time criminal. Class A-3 citizen of the North American Union. Opposed to the Chinese Hyper Mind-Union, the Ultra-Caliphate, Google Defense Network, and the People's Republic of Cascadia. National Separatist, enemy of the World Federation government and its unificationist allies.
Blogs Topics: Cyberpunk Nationalism. Futurist Shtposting. Timeline Vandalism. Harassing owls over the Internet.
Use whichever typical gender pronouns you like.
Not all content will have sufficient warning tags.
If they don’t do something, then there is no future for the Republican party.
But don’t worry. In about ten years I’m going to be asking “remember when the democrats made fun of marrying your cousin instead of calling all objections racist?”
Maybe Dems shouldn’t brag about Demographic Destiny™ next time.
Because I agree. Marrying your cousin is terrible, doing it for multiple generations is worse, not just with health risks, but also socially as support for extreme patriarchal norms. It doesn’t magically become good just because isolated, low-income, lower class white residents of rural Appalachia do it.
Is cousin marriage for one generation bad beyond the genetic and possible tight family control aspect?
Well, see, here’s the thing. White people (broadly) have been largely not-marrying-their-cousins for a while now, and they live in societies in which cousin marriage is fairly taboo. So when white people marry their cousin, it typically is a one generation thing, preventing a whole bunch of snowballing consequences.
I’m sure it seems otherwise on this blog, but I actually don’t have a strong disgust reaction towards cousin marriage. And if we continued to see rates around 1%, I wouldn’t really care.
But some populations have cousin-married at much higher rates, for much longer times. So one generation of cousin marriage for them isn’t the same as one generation of cousin marriage for other people.
It isn’t “too late.” Humans are resilient. We just have to have them stop doing it now.
Since we don’t have the full lineages of everyone, and I don’t want to go by other categories, I’d rather just throw the (very tiny) baby out with the bathwater and ban it for everyone.
Also, a big chunk of the tight family control aspect is cultural transmission. So now I’ll have to actually make that post about cultural transmission (generally) at some point, seeing as some things like FGM are cultural so cultural transmission isn’t all nice things like ethnic foods.
I cannot trust it will actually turn out like that at all due to how this has gone previously.
Why I specified “agreement to execute anyone who commits an honor killing” is that it’s an ideological sin to do that, and thus serves as a costly signal that they actually care and aren’t just trying to pull one over like they have previously, when they promised this stuff would not happen.
(Also it would de-normalize honor killings, but you get the idea.)
anaisnein
It brings in the whole existing orthogonal discourse over the death penalty and complicates the already complicated debate terrain. Also, summary execution is more of a What’s Wrong With Those Others thing and less a What’s Right About Us Here thing and I would think you wouldn’t be enthusiastic about that, it instantiates the cultural decay you’re postulating.
Well, let’s assume that the plan is to create an international-thinking city-state that values this free migration.
Right off the bat, the existing high-immigration city-state that does not have an issue with honor killings is Singapore, where the sentence for murder is death by hanging. Until 2012, this was mandatory. So flat out, if you engage in an “honor killing” in Singapore, they will kill you.
But of course, we don’t have to just copy-paste Singapore.
Cultural practices have inertia. Apply that inertia to Italian cuisine and you get Chicago-style deep dish pizza. Apply that inertia to throwing acid on women to control them, and you get acid attacks by British gangs.
They have to be stopped before that inertia can take hold.
And since we’re being so heavily about freedom of movement, we want to put the brakes on this within one generation, since we can’t necessarily rely on other methods, like limiting the maximum size of one incoming ethnic group and where they live in order to fragment them such that their number of cultural graph edges is insufficient to sustain their culture.
That leaves responding to barbarism and medieval behaviors, to some degree, with medieval means.
To some degree you can rely on liberal atomization, but only if the conditions are right for that atomization to have an effect, which means no cousin marriages or other barriers that honor-killers and the like can use to stop their families from atomizing. (And note that banning all new cousin marriages is, itself, not without controversy.) It also takes a while.
The sharper the change, the greater the degree of braking force necessary. It must be communicated not just to the men involved, but to the entire community they are a part of that this activity is not just socially disapproved of by the ethnic majority (who they may not care about), but that it is bullshit for chumps that only an idiot would engage in.
Getting executed because your took up arms against the state might be martyrdom, but getting executed because you honor-killed your sister is just stupid (and therefore low-status).
Otherwise you risk a long-burning change that could ride under the surface until it obtains enough political support (which may not be legalization, but just deliberately ignoring the problem).
If 5% of your population cousin marry, it takes a congressman to end it. If 10% of your population cousin marry, it takes a President. If 30% of your population cousin marry, it takes a King. The right time to end it, then, is before it cracks 6%.
I think white supremacists lean really hard on the framing that they’re not destroying peaceful integrated multicultural societies, they’re just noticing that those never existed anyway or are about to collapse anyway.
And of course it’s a transparent lie. There are lots and lots of societies that have had successful peaceful integration. Racists and xenophobes are the force making integration difficult and dangerous and fragile; there’s not some other force that they are just innocently noticing. (Bad economic conditions and weak governments and violence all contribute to making racist and xenophobic movements more appealing. But it’s important to observe that the ‘failure of multiculturalism’ is still caused by the racists and xenophobes acting, it’s not something that happens separately from them.)
Look, it’s true that Europe is not on the verge of a race war. They are not one more bombing away from all the white people mysteriously obtaining guns and launching a new “crusade” against the “saracens” amongst them. (They might be on the verge of the breakup of the EU.)
On the other hand, just because there is relative order does not mean things are as safe as they could be. What’s going on right now looks more like “ethnic tension.” When open Atheists get killed by vigilantes in Islamic countries it isn’t something you encounter on the street, usually. Likewise, when you see low-level violence it’s often going to be in low-SES areas, not where the tourists are. And, of course, that white guy making a van attack against seven random Muslims in response to van attacks by Muslims is more like an ethnic revenge killing in less-developed nations than a declaration of war.
And yes, it’s statistically improbable that you will be killed in the next concert bombing, and technically people should be more worried about falling furniture or whatever, but… The marginal costs are totally out of whack here, everyone knows these bombings are entirely unnecessary while it is pretty much inevitable that some people will die in furniture accidents no matter how hard you try.
Plus we all know that if the terrorists get their hands on an atomic bomb, they will vaporize New York. Furniture would never do this.
(We can also tell that the terrorism either isn’t really about stopping interference in the middle east, or that the terrorists are literally too stupid or ideological to realize what they’re doing isn’t working, because it has been very, very ineffective at that goal. Like, “the Bush Administration was able to get the American public to back the Iraq War” spectacularly ineffective. So “tolerate harder” is unlikely to stop it.)
Here is the problem. Multiculturalism as ideology makes for weak governments.
Wanting to maximize diversity is a non-sensical goal that should result in trying to create as many ethnic groups as there are people. All this “we need more diversity” and “celebrate diversity” stuff is like a religious law that was adaptive and then lost its usefulness but continued on because people didn’t follow it for its adaptiveness.
The real purpose of tolerance as a construct was to prevent continued justifications of war in Europe along religious lines, or something of that kind. It’s a social technology, not a virtue.
It is necessary to recognize the differences among cultures, and act accordingly. Liberalizing social atomization can only occur naturally if cultural forces/practices create the necessary environment.
With its “antiracism” and “decolonization” and opposition to assimilation, multiculturalism as ideology is actively preventing this.
You have to consider how different cultures propagate and support themselves. So that means, if you want to end this nonsense, well…
Ban cousin marriage, out to the second or even third degree. How exactly do these families keep such tight control on “their” women that they think that they own them? Well, being able to arrange marriages without even leaving the family might have something to do with it! Having to marry farther out means women must be given more freedom in practical terms, which will loosen and help eventually destroy their grasp.
Refuse to accept the legalization of polygamy. Polygamy is actually polygyny in practice usually, particularly in the countries these groups are coming from. The child marriage, patriarchal control of women, all of that flows from the gender ratio imbalance under polygamy. Polygamy is bad for women, it is bad for children, it is bad for wealth and for education. Even in the West.
Execute honor killers. Yes, I know, but we want to put the brakes on this now before it sticks. The key is to flip the social status of honor killers from “something those oppressive ethnic majority members stop us from doing and which we will resist” to “you’d have to be a fucking idiot to kill your sister and get executed for it.”
Make killing anyone for leaving a religion a hate crime. Again, it’s a method of control that prevents liberalizing atomization. If that isn’t enough, if people still kill others for leaving Islam, execute them.
Stiffer penalties for FGM and acid attacks. Not only are these methods that those communities use to reinforce their control and prevent atomization, but acid attacks have started catching on among the natives. Political pressure not to crack down on FGM must be stopped in its tracks before it can reach the critical theshold to be co-opted by political parties.
In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.1–2.0 percentage points over an average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40.
Well now, that doesn’t sound so dangerous - wait, what’s this following paragraph?
Repeated consanguineous marriages within a group are more problematic. After repeated generations of cousin marriage the actual genetic relationship between two people is closer than the most immediate relationship would suggest. In Pakistan, where there has been cousin marriage for generations and the current rate may exceed 50%, one study estimated infant mortality at 12.7 percent for married double first cousins, 7.9 percent for first cousins, 9.2 percent for first cousins once removed/double second cousins, 6.9 percent for second cousins, and 5.1 percent among nonconsanguineous progeny. Among double first cousin progeny, 41.2 percent of prereproductive deaths were associated with the expression of detrimental recessive genes, with equivalent values of 26.0, 14.9, and 8.1 percent for first cousins, first cousins once removed/double second cousins, and second cousins respectively.
Given the high rate of such marriages, many children come from repeat generations of first-cousin marriages. The report states that these children are 13 times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic disorders, and one in ten children of first-cousin marriages in Birmingham either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability. The BBC also states that Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births in the UK, produce “just under a third” of all British children with genetic illnesses. Published studies show that mean perinatal mortality in the Pakistani community of 15.7 per thousand significantly exceeds that in the indigenous population and all other ethnic groups in Britain. Congenital anomalies account for 41 percent of all British Pakistani infant deaths.
Well, fuck. This isn’t good.
The increased mortality and birth defects observed among British Pakistanis may, however, have another source besides current consanguinity.
Oh, you mean it might be some kind of outside oppression? I bet Whi-
Population subdivision results from decreased gene flow among different groups in a population. Because members of Pakistani biradari have married only inside these groups for generations, offspring have higher average homozygosity even for couples with no known genetic relationship.
Oh. Nope, having kids with people who are too genetically similar to each other.
Now remember, we’re talking about information from Wikipedia and the BBC, not Evil Hatefacts from an Evil Hatesite.
So that’s the genetic aspect. So why do they do it?
To keep wealth within the family and stick close to the father’s genetic line.
It isn’t some huge, secret magical diverse cultural benefit that the Middle East has and we don’t. It’s just clannishness. (In fact, I suspect the clannishness is even responsible for some of the issues in their armies.)
Now, the Alt Right seems to think that as a result of this and other issues, all Muslim immigrants must be kicked out of the UK.
That is not necessary. Also it would probably get a lot of people hurt or killed, which is bad. So let’s not do that.
For the Liberals, we should keep in mind that cousin marriage likely promotes clannishness and amoral familism (”my family, right or wrong”), due to increased genetic similarity and insulation from the outer world. In fact, that’s pretty much the purpose of the practice.
Remember that social atomization that was supposed to melt away the religions and make everyone into happy Liberals? That isn’t going to happen if they all marry their cousins, which enables and incentivizes close, repressive, tight control of women, and insular culture.
If we want Islam to chill out and liberalize and soften, like Christianity, and we want the Muslim immigrants to become happy Liberals, then we must ban cousin marriage.
No excuses because “it’s their culture,” or “you’re just a repressive [ethnic majority].” That isn’t helping them.
That’s enabling them. Cousin marriage is bad. It’s self-destructive behavior. It’s other-destructive behavior for the kids, too.
Human beings are resilient. It won’t take that long to start removing the most negative effects, if we start now.
Hell, why don’t we re-enact Sherman’s march and raze the US south, the southern US is full of shitty people with shitty politics. Maybe burn down all Mormon churches and compounds, they got both nasty shit going on and nasty politics.
I get you wanna piss your fuckin pants because it’s those dirty furriners doing those dirty furriner crimes, but horrible shit didn’t start with immigration and it won’t end when it’s cut off.
Things being bad is not a reason to make them worse. (This part of the problem with arguments about alcohol/drugs, too.)
We have no obligation to import these people. We do not have an obligation to import people that will make the country worse. We don’t have an obligation to tolerate criminal acts favored by their cultures, or tear our national social cohesion to shreds to tolerate those acts.
So some fringe groups of Mormons are still polygamists and practice shady things with young brides and that sort of thing. Oh look, Westerners doing a bad thing. Better import enough people that have similar practices so that it becomes normalized and gains political power! That’ll sure improve things! Yay justice!
but horrible shit didn’t start with immigration and it won’t end when it’s cut off.
How much FGM was happening in the US before it was imported? It won’t stop now if immigration is shut off only because we won’t literally kick all those who practice it out of the country.
Kicking out only individuals who are actually convicted of it is the individualist approach. And it makes sense. The preconditions for citizenship included not bringing foreign criminal/terrorist activity to this country. Those preconditions were violated.
In light of that, how does removing citizenship not make sense?
And I don’t really think the problem we have is “We don’t execute criminals grotesquely enough.“ I think there’s a reason why we don’t do that sort of thing anymore. If you wanted to heighten investigation, that could make sense, but public executions don’t really help anyone.
It apparently cost $500,000 to prosecute three guys, and the number of crimes committed is far worse.
However, “diversity” ideology covered up that the crimes were even happening in the first place. Admitting that some cultures practice this bullsht more than others was “racist”. I mean it’s just economics, right? Cultural differences beyond food aren’t real, right?
What is your plan to force assimilation on this issue?
Maybe we don’t have to publicly execute them. Maybe we can just ordinarily execute them and make sure it gets in the news where their buddies we read it.
Maybe I don’t even want to go that far. Maybe I just want to throw the Overton Window far enough to the right that Cultural Antirealism will die and Left/Libs will at least start admitting that there is a problem and we can get a gentler solution that actually works.
“Of course,” said the moderate, as the ethnic violence increased in the country and multi-generational child sex trafficking rings set up in the cities, “some may die, but isn’t our vision of a tolerant and diverse society worth it?”
: /
I know, this is very deeply uncharitable of me. Something about this latest attack has me on edge. I think it’s that I see a path from here to ethnic tension criticality in England, which, with the previous attacks being a cycle of terrorism vs military campaigns, I didn’t.
The unfortunate reality is that some of the MRA’s claims are undoubtedly true and deserve serious consideration, yet the overall picture presented to the audience is erroneous at best and outright disingenuous at worst. While men’s issues require genuine advocacy, the heroes of this pathetic diatribe tend to be rather unsavory characters.
(via the-grey-tribe)
If only there were some organization for gender equality that could have addressed these problems before a new group like “MRAs” formed… maybe a movement that said very many times that it is about gender equality…
In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.1–2.0 percentage points over an average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40.
Well now, that doesn’t sound so dangerous - wait, what’s this following paragraph?
Repeated consanguineous marriages within a group are more problematic. After repeated generations of cousin marriage the actual genetic relationship between two people is closer than the most immediate relationship would suggest. In Pakistan, where there has been cousin marriage for generations and the current rate may exceed 50%, one study estimated infant mortality at 12.7 percent for married double first cousins, 7.9 percent for first cousins, 9.2 percent for first cousins once removed/double second cousins, 6.9 percent for second cousins, and 5.1 percent among nonconsanguineous progeny. Among double first cousin progeny, 41.2 percent of prereproductive deaths were associated with the expression of detrimental recessive genes, with equivalent values of 26.0, 14.9, and 8.1 percent for first cousins, first cousins once removed/double second cousins, and second cousins respectively.
Given the high rate of such marriages, many children come from repeat generations of first-cousin marriages. The report states that these children are 13 times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic disorders, and one in ten children of first-cousin marriages in Birmingham either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability. The BBC also states that Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births in the UK, produce “just under a third” of all British children with genetic illnesses. Published studies show that mean perinatal mortality in the Pakistani community of 15.7 per thousand significantly exceeds that in the indigenous population and all other ethnic groups in Britain. Congenital anomalies account for 41 percent of all British Pakistani infant deaths.
Well, fuck. This isn’t good.
The increased mortality and birth defects observed among British Pakistanis may, however, have another source besides current consanguinity.
Oh, you mean it might be some kind of outside oppression? I bet Whi-
Population subdivision results from decreased gene flow among different groups in a population. Because members of Pakistani biradari have married only inside these groups for generations, offspring have higher average homozygosity even for couples with no known genetic relationship.
Oh. Nope, having kids with people who are too genetically similar to each other.
Now remember, we’re talking about information from Wikipedia and the BBC, not Evil Hatefacts from an Evil Hatesite.
So that’s the genetic aspect. So why do they do it?
To keep wealth within the family and stick close to the father’s genetic line.
It isn’t some huge, secret magical diverse cultural benefit that the Middle East has and we don’t. It’s just clannishness. (In fact, I suspect the clannishness is even responsible for some of the issues in their armies.)
Now, the Alt Right seems to think that as a result of this and other issues, all Muslim immigrants must be kicked out of the UK.
That is not necessary. Also it would probably get a lot of people hurt or killed, which is bad. So let’s not do that.
For the Liberals, we should keep in mind that cousin marriage likely promotes clannishness and amoral familism (”my family, right or wrong”), due to increased genetic similarity and insulation from the outer world. In fact, that’s pretty much the purpose of the practice.
Remember that social atomization that was supposed to melt away the religions and make everyone into happy Liberals? That isn’t going to happen if they all marry their cousins, which enables and incentivizes close, repressive, tight control of women, and insular culture.
If we want Islam to chill out and liberalize and soften, like Christianity, and we want the Muslim immigrants to become happy Liberals, then we must ban cousin marriage.
No excuses because “it’s their culture,” or “you’re just a repressive [ethnic majority].” That isn’t helping them.
That’s enabling them. Cousin marriage is bad. It’s self-destructive behavior. It’s other-destructive behavior for the kids, too.
Human beings are resilient. It won’t take that long to start removing the most negative effects, if we start now.
Considering the current level of ongoing cousin marriage, the current “compromise” clearly is not enough. It is better to have a new “compromise” which is substantially more opposed to cousin marriage than the current one.
So tell me, how do you stop the Progressive Left from decrying the new Reproductive Genetic Risk Assessment Tax as Evil Racism? And how do you prevent it from expanding to other categories?
“Don’t marry your cousin, the government will no longer issue any new marriage licenses for it after [DATE]” is a pretty clear line that draws on the pre-existing taboo in the West against incest and is therefore unlikely to dramatically expand, or cost much to administer.
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.
